BOA agenda 060815 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 James Bryan: Are you talking about how the subpoena is relevant to any of this case? I would recommend that you 2 let the moving party make their case and it is best for me not to speculate. I have had discussions with them but 3 allow them make their case. If you wanted to do the subpoena first, I guess that is the board’s prerogative but you 4 might ask the appellant if they want to hear it first. 5 6 Larry Wright: I would like to go through as it is presented and organized as the packet has been designed and then 7 we will deal with the board’s final decision of the jurisdictions and if it is final and binding and we can hear the 8 testimony of those if they are called on pages 27 through 36 if they want to call them and then present their case and 9 respond to Michael’s situation and then we can go back. We can always deal with subpoena and standing last. We 10 don’t have to do standing up front, do we? 11 12 James Bryan: My recommendation is to handle jurisdiction and standing first. The subpoena, however you want to 13 handle that but it has to be before they put on their case is my recommendation. 14 15 Larry Wright: I would like to, if this is what we are doing today, I have and I will send it to both attorney and you and 16 Mr. Harvey and to the board members. I want to give the board members ample opportunities as State Statute 160A-17 388 Board of Adjustment and how subpoena relates to us. Let’s read this information now. 18 19 David Blankfard: Read the Public Charge. 20 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 5: A-5-14 – Appeal of a Revised Determination made by the Zoning Officer submitted by 23 Adrian Carter, Robert Nicholas, John Gallagher, Kathleen Erickson, Heron Pond 24 Subdivision homeowners, ETAL: 25 In accordance with the provisions of the Orange County UDO, the applicant(s) have appealed a decision of the 26 Zoning Officer related to the rescinding of a Notice of Violation associated with the purported operation of a shooting 27 range. 28 The County issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) on April 29, 2013 over the discharge of firearms on a 34 acre 29 undeveloped parcel of property identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9747-86-5920 30 owned by Mr. William Klein. 31 The Notice of Violation was rescinded in February 2014 due to lack of credible evidence as well as a review of recent 32 court cases. The letter rescinding the NOV informed Mr. Klein staff would continue to investigate the matter and 33 reserved the right to re-initiate the enforcement effort. 34 The applicant(s) allege staff erred when rescinding the NOV citing seven specific determinations as follows: 35 1) There is no ‘firing range’ operating from Bingham Woods Mobile Home Park property. 36 2) Discharging firearms by [the] property owner and family was a customary accessory use. 37 3) There is currently no ‘principal use’ on the undeveloped 34 acre parcel. 38 4) The [April 29, 2013] NOV is hereby rescinded. 39 5) The NOV was ambiguous in that it made mention only of [proposed] operations but failed to give clear and 40 complete allegation of the violation. 41 6) The NOV made no conclusion on whether a non-profit recreational use existed at this location, which is 42 required for such a determination to be made. 43 7) Other than the discharge of firearms by residents and guests, the NOV alleged no facts on which to base a 44 conclusion that a non-profit recreation use existed. 45 5